The Time's Right For Preservation

The Time's Right For Preservation

There are 11 comments on the Hartford Courant story from Feb 7, 2009, titled The Time's Right For Preservation. In it, Hartford Courant reports that:

At nearly 50 square miles, Guilford is one of the largest towns in the state, and one of the most attractive.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Hartford Courant.

Truth be Told

South Windsor, CT

#1 Feb 8, 2009
Since the Courant apparently refuses to post my message from this morning, which contained specific facts the Courant does not want its readers to know, how about this instead?

ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

“Hang up the Phone in the Zone!”

Since: Nov 07

United States

#2 Feb 8, 2009
Truth be Told wrote:
Since the Courant apparently refuses to post my message from this morning, which contained specific facts the Courant does not want its readers to know, how about this instead?
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Please post it again! I am very interested.
Truth be Told

South Windsor, CT

#3 Feb 8, 2009
Lets try again.

The State DEP's "Green Plan" was recently updated. This "plan" (which is not really a plan) points out that the State really has NO IDEA how many acres of "open space" are currently protected in Connecticut, and FURTHERMORE that it is most likely the State has greatly UNDERESTIMATED the total acreage of protected open space in Connecticut.

Note to TOM and the HC. This "plan" is readily and easily accessed via the DEP's website, in case you'd like to may just maybe read it before making inane statements about the topic.

Nonetheless, even in light of this, the State DEP green "plan" then proceeds to recommend that in order to meet State targets for land protection (which are in and of themselves of questionable empirical merit), we need to spend "x" amount of tax dollars for "y" additional acres. Again, this recommendation is included in the very State DEP "plan" that ITSELF points out we have no idea what the current "baseline" of acres actually is.

A great way to run a government and a State into financial oblivion.

So. That "Tom" and people like Tom and the Courant and "environmentalists" and weepy legislators continue to support tax dollars for "open space" preservation, when they know, or should know, its all based on a manufactured "crisis" and numbers the DEP ITSELF says are bogus, would seem to be something taxpayers and readers would find of interest, and that a member of the fourth estate would deem worthy of disclosure. Some might even think it would be the Courant's RESPONSIBILITY to expose this madness.

Apparently not. Apparently it is the media's job to poison the citizenry with lies, in order to further the objectives of a particular special interest group.

So, since you refused to post my note from this morning, lets see if you'll let this one see the light of day.

Better still, lets see if you'll do an impartial investigation into the DEP's "Green Plan" confirming the facts I've related and perhaps asking legislators (and your boy Tom) why taxpayers should continue to fund these programs in light of the DEP's own admitted bogus numbers?

I won't hold my breath (but WILL keep writing tax checks). Keep up the great work.
skeptical

Waterbury, CT

#4 Feb 8, 2009
Truth be Told wrote:
Since the Courant apparently refuses to post my message from this morning, which contained specific facts the Courant does not want its readers to know, how about this instead?
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
would like to hear what you had to say

“Hang up the Phone in the Zone!”

Since: Nov 07

United States

#5 Feb 8, 2009
Truth be Told wrote:
Lets try again.
The State DEP's "Green Plan" was recently updated. This "plan" (which is not really a plan) points out that the State really has NO IDEA how many acres of "open space" are currently protected in Connecticut, and FURTHERMORE that it is most likely the State has greatly UNDERESTIMATED the total acreage of protected open space in Connecticut.
Note to TOM and the HC. This "plan" is readily and easily accessed via the DEP's website, in case you'd like to may just maybe read it before making inane statements about the topic.
Nonetheless, even in light of this, the State DEP green "plan" then proceeds to recommend that in order to meet State targets for land protection (which are in and of themselves of questionable empirical merit), we need to spend "x" amount of tax dollars for "y" additional acres. Again, this recommendation is included in the very State DEP "plan" that ITSELF points out we have no idea what the current "baseline" of acres actually is.
A great way to run a government and a State into financial oblivion.
So. That "Tom" and people like Tom and the Courant and "environmentalists" and weepy legislators continue to support tax dollars for "open space" preservation, when they know, or should know, its all based on a manufactured "crisis" and numbers the DEP ITSELF says are bogus, would seem to be something taxpayers and readers would find of interest, and that a member of the fourth estate would deem worthy of disclosure. Some might even think it would be the Courant's RESPONSIBILITY to expose this madness.
Apparently not. Apparently it is the media's job to poison the citizenry with lies, in order to further the objectives of a particular special interest group.
So, since you refused to post my note from this morning, lets see if you'll let this one see the light of day.
Better still, lets see if you'll do an impartial investigation into the DEP's "Green Plan" confirming the facts I've related and perhaps asking legislators (and your boy Tom) why taxpayers should continue to fund these programs in light of the DEP's own admitted bogus numbers?
I won't hold my breath (but WILL keep writing tax checks). Keep up the great work.
I think this was a great posting and not sure why the Courant chose not to post it.

With that being said, it would be hard for DEP to quantify all preserved acreage in the state. Many are not state or municipal owned but also privately held by land trusts and the alike. Also, would you consider private owned parcels as open space? Especially if they can be developed? Or do you put those on a wish list of preservation? These are questions that needs to be answered before a head count can take place.
Planner

Portland, CT

#6 Feb 9, 2009
Oh please, you commenters. The state also has no accurate idea how many buildings there are in the state, how much traffic travels on most roads in the state, etc.

The state has only mediocre data on these things--open space holdings included--because of home rule. Practically everything in this state in managed at the LOCAL level, and that means 169 different governments, all with different standards, different levels of eptitude, and horrendous communication logistics. Other states and counties have better numbers, but they don't have our cherished home rule.
Tony O

Durham, CT

#7 Feb 12, 2009
When the farmland is turned over for cul de sacs and mcmansions, we sacrifice our sustainable future for the easy comfort of an affluent minority. It is a slap in the face to democratic ideals and one of capitalism's terrible shames
Bill

Groton, CT

#8 Feb 12, 2009
Tony O wrote:
When the farmland is turned over for cul de sacs and mcmansions, we sacrifice our sustainable future for the easy comfort of an affluent minority. It is a slap in the face to democratic ideals and one of capitalism's terrible shames
Once upon a time the property on which you now live was open space. How is it that you are able to get yours, but no one else can get theirs. Want to know why our property taxes are so high? Because when some developer identifies an attractive piece of property on which to build, he is shot down by "environmentalists" and NIMBYs like you, who don't want more traffic, don't want more kids in your schools, and - heaven forbid - don't want tax revenue generated by something as awful as development. Your mantra would seem to be: "Do as I say, not as I do." And there's a word for it: selfish.
Justin

West Hartford, CT

#9 Feb 12, 2009
That's nice, but preservationists need to realize that preservation comes at a cost. Preventing development reduces the state's economy and stifles job creation. There needs to be a balance, and the graying citizens of this state should be more concerned about the next generation and not just preserving things the way they are.
Jason

Northford, CT

#10 Feb 12, 2009
The town over paid. The valuation was based on the market two years ago. Have the town officials noted what has happened to the real estate market since 2007? And, the argument that this would secure 70 acres for public works is no argument at all. Why not just purchase the 70 acres?

The town got ripped off. More precisely, the Guilford tax payers got ripped off.

All those elected town officials who supported this, take note. You will lose votes next time around. There is a groundswell of voters who are tired of your irresponsible actions and self serving agendas.
Jason

Northford, CT

#11 Feb 12, 2009
another 15.5 million of debt is not what Guilford needs during these difficult economic times. Time for elected officials to curtail spending and debt creation. The tax payers are already being squeezed beyond what is tolerable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guilford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
attorney needed to collect from attorney Robert... (Jul '09) Aug 26 operation gladio 2
News Young Children Still Suspended In High Numbers ... Aug 17 BPT 12
Review: CT Krav Maga & MMA Aug 10 kenial 5
Gang Stalking In Guilford CT (Apr '15) Jun '16 Onthelist 7
Car Accident in Branford (Jun '08) Jun '16 Her cousin 24
Review: Bridgepoint Mortgage LLC (Mar '15) May '16 SO TRUE 5
News On Wet Road, `Officer Down' (Apr '07) Apr '16 get it Right 21

Guilford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Guilford Mortgages